130°

Are Gamers to Blame for the Rise of Microtransactions?

Companies have seen close to a billion dollars per year in microtransaction in 2016 and 2017 and we are more than likely to see those numbers rise again by the end of 2018. That means gamers are buying more and more microtransactions year on year, so are gamers the ones to blame?

Read Full Story >>
deadpixelsonline.com
DivineAssault 2668d ago

Yes because they keep buying all that stuff..

InKnight7s2666d ago

Stuff????
Its garbage since Activision selling these maps and then years later start selling packs.

81BX2667d ago

If it keeps game prices down... then idc

Zabatsu2666d ago

Lol, right - and North Korea will bring world peace. That is the excuse greedy companies have, to be able to justify these methods. MT is nothing short of the ultimate form of greed.

Pro_TactX2666d ago

81BX has a point actually. The price of games has not kept up with inflation. Games are cheaper now than they ever have been, despite having significantly higher development costs.

New NES games were $29.99 in 1985. That’s over $70 today, yet new games are released at $59.99.

Ittoittosai2666d ago

@pro_tactx

You defendists keep bring up inflation. You then ignore the cost reductions that have happened in the logistics of delivering games and the increase in the gaming audience.

Then there is the miss information you just passed about the price of NES games in the 80's. NES games generally cost between 45-60$ in the 80's in the 90's the price settled around generally 50$ with some depending on the game were MSRP of 99$ like games with the FX chip and thats why the carts prices varied so wildly because the FX games at 99$ had extra chips and PCB inside the cart. The price for games began to stablize because of CDs. Cds even with the case whether jewel or dvd style have less plastic and material than a cart. Thus the 60$ price tag. Games dont cost 60$ anymore they havent for some time. Now if you want the season pass and extra this or that its a tiered system 60$ for the base game usually 70 80 hell some sports games have 140$ versions and still have MT in them. Now add to that in 1985 gaming was around a 1 billion dollar a year business and today its the largest entertainment medium ever at 79 billion a year and 60$ is still profitable especially when you take into account all PC games are sold digitally and more and more console gaming is moving that direction as well games can still be pretty profitable at a 60$ price point.

Next marketing budgets need to be redesigned and scaled back. When you look at a game like destiny most of the 500 million dollars spent on that game was the marketing, anyone whose played it can tell you that. Its not the consumers fault or responsibility to shouldered the missteps and irresponsible spending and lack of management the devs, pubs and creators make. MT are about greed, making every last cent possible trying to leave no money in your wallet thats greed not capitalism.

Lastly businesses and especially American businesses have lost sight of what success is. In the 80's selling 500k units was a smash hit now if something doesnt sell 10 million it preformed disappointingly. It used to be success was making 20% ROI now they considered 20% failure, if you're not making sometimes double the investment back then its a failure, that is simply greed and nothing else. Spin how you want 60$ is still plenty for gaming companies to make money.

yomfweeee2666d ago

@ittoit, i think you're focusing a bit to much on just the media cost. Games now a day cost 10s or 100+ million to develop. That's the biggest part. MT help with that cost.

Season Pass is extra content. People always act like base games nowadays are shorter than in the past and then they make you pay more for everything. Wrong. Games are longer than they used to be, even without the SP. SP is extra content and there's no reason you shouldn't pay for it.

UltraNova2666d ago

I sincerely hope that you do not believe that, for the sake of everyone.

81BX2666d ago (Edited 2666d ago )

The funny part is you think by purchasing a game and not buying MTS you are doing something. Mark my words is MTS go away the price of games will rise that is a fact!

_-EDMIX-_2667d ago

The only people to blame regarding microtransaction content are the companies that are creating it.

We still have an Economy based on supply and demand and at the end of the day these users are buying enough microtransactions to justify their existence but that doesn't actually mean that every single company in gaming is going to do this practice, but I think you guys might need to get used to that users exist that don't mind purchasing this content.

I would argue the biggest topic is microtransactions altering content to try to manipulate a need for their existence ie trying to make a game purposely harder to try to pretend that microtransactions are necessary.

I would argue that is the biggest topic at hand not necessarily the existence of the microtransaction itself because how that is actually used varies greatly.

I mean based on that logic The Witcher 3 should be bashed for having microtransactions... right?

Cobra9512666d ago

Great post on this subject. The disagrees other than my upvote would baffle me if this were any other site. My only issue is calling the two TW3 DLCs "microtransactions". I think the headline question refers to that blight that burst into the scene with horse armor. Bona fide game expansions have been in the picture for a long time, and the TW3 DLCs certainly fit that mold.

_-EDMIX-_2666d ago

Thank you and my point of bringing up the Witcher 3 is all the free microtransactions that were given not necessarily the expansions.

I want people to understand that they would not actually hate The Witcher 3 for having microtransactions because they were free in the first place which actually shows that this is not really an issue because it exists it sounding like it's an issue because of how it's being used because for the most part the free microtransactions for The Witcher 3 were praised by multiple Gamers no one was saying they hated the concept.

So I think people need to be specific on what they mean regarding microtransactions because I believe the term is too broad for it to fit blanket statements. Not enough focus is put on the abuse of it , too much focus is actually put on its existence in general.

Derceto2667d ago

Difficult question to answer.

If "gamers" (and I use that term loosely in this case) were to have willpower greater than that of a spoiled child, and "not" invest in this trash, then pubs would obviously have no ability to make money off them.

I'm sure you can figure out the rest.

TheDriz2667d ago (Edited 2667d ago )

I don’t like micro transactions but I also haven’t bought dlc or anything like that. I play a lot of games and unless it becomes one of my all timers I usually just play the base game and move on. I’m not a multiplayer person. I don’t participate and they don’t ruin games for me. I wasn’t gonna buy the cool outfit or second save slot regardless so you can put em there for people that want them. I haven’t felt like I’m missing out when I pass on dlc or mts. I got too many fun games to play to worry about a second character or new level in a game I’ve already beaten.

_-EDMIX-_2667d ago

Agreed.

So long as it's not actually affecting my game I don't actually care.

NotoriousWhiz2666d ago

For the most part, I agree with you. I generally don't buy DLC nor do I buy micro transactions. In some cases, they're basically the same thing. Cosmetic DLC vs micro transactions, what's the difference? One is earnable in game, the other isn't.

Show all comments (27)
70°

2025 Cloud Gaming Trends: Growth, Challenges, and the Push Toward B2B

2025 cloud gaming trends are looking good, but it’s not all smooth yet. We break down what’s working, what’s not, and what comes next.

Read Full Story >>
clouddosage.com
darthv7211h ago

As someone who has been gaming nearly as long as gaming has been around (since the early 70's), you'd think I'd be against this. Having grown up with all the major platforms and the whole notion of physical ownership... but I'm not. i embrace this as it is a revolutionary convenience. And one i know for a fact many (especially here) have not even given the fair chance to use. I get it... i was there too. But now i have a new outlook on it. It really is a hell of an option if you just want to play with no commitments. By no means am i saying this should replace traditional gaming, its an option. And one that people should look at optimistically as a way to compliment traditional gaming. There is room for both to thrive.

50°

Blacknut Announces a New Partnership With Kalypso Media

Blacknut has announced a brand new partnership with Kalypso Media. This will see Kalypso's gaming portfolio arrive on Blacknut.

The partnership will take hold from June 27th with the arrival of a selection of Klaypos Media titles onto the Blacknut cloud gaming platform.

Read Full Story >>
clouddosage.com
160°

It Shouldn't Take Expedition 33's Success to Remind Square Enix That Turn-Based Still Sells

TNS: Expedition 33 was the wake-up call Square Enix needed, telling it turn-based RPGs are still popular, but that shouldn't have been the case.

Read Full Story >>
thenerdstash.com
Relientk7717h ago

True, but if it does get it through their thick skulls, then that works.

Although, the Dragon Quest 1 + 2 HD remakes will be turn-based and (the worst kept secret) Final Fantasy IX remake should be turn-based I would imagine. Let's see if any newer games go turn-based too.

thorstein13h ago(Edited 13h ago)

DQIII HD Remake was turned based and very successful. Then there was a really obscure turn based game came Balder's Gate 3. I heard it might have done well.

Profchaos10h ago

I wouldn't be shocked if they switched ff to the vii remake combat system

PapaBop6h ago

It won't get through to them though, despite E33's success, they still won't risk going fully turn based for their big budget projects simply because they are still in the mindset that it needs to be action combat to appeal to the mainstream audience. I hope I'm wrong but don't underestimate just how stubborn Japanese execs can be

DivineHand12516h ago

While it is true that Sqaure Enix has moved away from turn based games compared to how they were in the past, there is a good reason for it.

Older gamers will know this but during the ps2 era, we were flooded with turned based games from Japanese studios and this created a form of fatigue back then going into the next generation.

When Square released FF13, they received heavy criticism for making the game turned based like every other FF game and not doing enough to innovate. This is why they made FF15, FF7 Remake and FF16 have real time combat. It gave the series a fresh spin and has brought in new fans to the series.

I personally would be happy with either turned based FF or the real-time combat version we see today.

Shane Kim15h ago

Remake and Rebirth have "turn based" if you set it in the settings.

Lexreborn213h ago

Dang wish I saw your post before I made mine because we definitely feel the same way lol

Profchaos10h ago(Edited 10h ago)

Yeah hit the nail on the head but its like ww2 games we get hundreds of them then a decade of nothing and people start missing them i think we're going to start seeing them return

Claire, dragon quest even yakuza have seen turn based return

andy8516h ago

Only need to look at their own game DQ 11 approaching 10 million to show there's a market. And that's not as big of a name as FF

Tacoboto16h ago

Another article about Expedition 33 and Square Enix and turn-based games? This is starting to sound like propaganda.

The game didn't sell because it's a turn-based game; it sold and is enjoyed because it's a really freaking good game that released completed at a good price without gamer drama attached to it. No Mtx, no wait-until-it's-patched, minimal bloat, a self-contained story, no multiplatform BS. Just a solid original game that absolutely nails what it intended to do.

Redemption-6415h ago

I was just about to say the same thing.

anast14h ago

This comment should have a 100 upvotes, at least.

CrimsonWing6915h ago

Maybe try actually listening to the fans who have supported the series for decades. This habit of ignoring your core audience just to chase people who were never interested in Final Fantasy in the first place makes no sense. And when that approach fails, doubling down on it is beyond baffling.

The battle system has never been the main reason non-FF or non-JRPG players stayed away. Gutting the series’ identity to chase a broader market doesn’t attract new players. It just alienates the loyal ones.

Keep going down this road and we’ll end up with Final Fantasy Fortnite abomination or a F2P Battle Royale game.. Oh wait…

Show all comments (19)